Alabama is a state that is rich with
biodiversity.We rank 5th
among states in the Union for total number of species,
and 1st among states east of the Mississippi River.Unfortunately, we are at risk of losing much of this natural
heritage.We rank 2nd in the
nation for the number of extinct species, and 15% of our species are at risk of
extinction.To arrest this trend of
biodiversity loss, we must be active in the protection of our ecosystems and
native species.Friends of Oak Mountain
(FOM) believes the Alabama State Parks system can play a critical role in this
endeavor.

OakMountainState Park (OMSP) is one of Alabama’s most important natural treasures. The
park contains several natural ecosystems and hundreds of plant and animal
species, many of which have been eradicated throughout much of the region.Thus, OMSP has become an important refuge for
biodiversity conservation in Alabama.However, the park is located in the fastest growing county in Alabama.Two outcomes of the rapid population growth in ShelbyCounty are affecting biodiversity in the
park.First, the number of park visitors
and the diversity of recreation in the park is
increasing.Second, the largely forested
landscape surrounding the park is becoming urbanized.The growing use of the park and the increased
pressures from the park’s surroundings will have many impacts on the park’s
ecosystems and species.

Friends of OakMountain wants to ensure that the park take
determined measures to ensure that the needs ofthe park’s biodiversity are met.To achieve this, FOM is calling for the
creation of a Biodiversity Conservation Plan (BCP) for OakMountainState Park.As envisioned by FOM, the plan would specifically address how to manage
park resources to ensure the long-term survival of its natural ecosystems and
native species. This plan should clearly articulate the needs of biodiversity
and recreation in the park.It should
also outline ways in which plans for biodiversity conservation and recreational
development can be flexible and compatible.In this document, we explain how such a BCP would function and how it
might be developed.In addition, details
are provided of FOM’s position on specific
biodiversity management concerns facing OakMountainState Park.

Friends of OakMountain requests that AlabamaState Parks and the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources (DCNR) commit to and initiate the development of a
Biodiversity Conservation Plan for the park.We believe the careful planning that will result from this process is
necessary to ensure the long-term preservation of the park’s natural beauty and
rich biodiversity.If successful, such a
venture may serve as a model for other state parks in Alabama, and, potentially, for other state park
systems in the United States.Such a commitment could help Alabama become a leader in biodiversity
stewardship, a status that would be well-deserved for a state so rich in
natural heritage.

Alabama is a state that is rich with
biodiversity.In terms of the total
number of native species within our borders, we rank 5th among all
states in the Union, and 1st among states east of the Mississippi River (Stein 2002).Our biodiversity is a cornerstone of our
state's rich natural heritage, a fact increasingly appreciated by Alabama's citizens.Many of the guests to Alabama's state parks visit specifically to enjoy
the biodiversity protected by the parks.Unfortunately, we are at risk of losing our state's natural
heritage.Within the United States, Alabama ranks 2nd for the number of
extinct species, and 15% of all native species in the state are at risk of
extinction (Stein 2002).To protect our
natural heritage and arrest the trend of species loss, we need to provide the
natural resources needed for our ecosystems and their species.The Alabama State Parks system can play a
critical role in this endeavor.

Friends
of Oak Mountain (FOM) believes
that Oak Mountain State Park (OMSP) is a key player in protecting the state's
natural heritage.Rich with
biodiversity, the park contains many natural ecosystems and hundreds of plant
and animal species.Thus, the park is,
and increasingly will be, a vitally important refuge for species that once were
widespread in north-central Alabama but have been eradicated throughout most
of their former extent in the region.For example, OMSP contains expanses of mountain longleaf pine forests,
an endangered ecosystem that has become the focus of regional conservation
efforts (e.g., the new Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge near Anniston).By providing refuge for biodiversity, OMSP could become a critically
important participant in conservation in Alabama.In addition, due to its central location, OMSP provides an important
link between two other important refuges for biodiversity in the state - the
Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge to the west, and the TalladegaNational Forest to the east.However, for the park to continue to provide
refuge for native ecosystems and their species, it is important that park
managers actively address two key issues: a) how biodiversity protection
interacts with other management priorities in the park, and b) how the welfare
of the park's ecosystems and native species are being affected by the
urbanization of the landscape surrounding the park.

Providing
outdoor recreational opportunities is one of the most important management
priorities for the park. Thousands of visitors enjoy the park's vast network of
hiking, biking, and horse-back riding trails; fishing and swimming in the
lakes; camping; golfing; and picnic facilities.The revenue generated from these visitors is critically important to
supporting OMSP and other components of Alabama State Parks.Clearly, recreational use of the park needs
to remain a top priority for park management and development in the coming
century.Current levels and types of
recreational activities in the park appear to be compatible with maintaining
the park's biodiversity.However, as
recreational use of the park grows and matures, it is critical that the needs
of recreation are carefully balanced with the needs of the park's native
species and their ecosystems.

In addition,
both the needs of biodiversity and
recreation in the park need to be managed in light of the rapid degree of
urbanization in the areas immediately surrounding the park.OMSP is within one of the fastest growing
metropolitan areas in the south.ShelbyCounty, within which OMSP is situated, was the
fastest growing county in Alabama during the 1990s.Lands adjacent to the park are rapidly being
converted from forest into suburban and urban sprawl.These developments threaten the quality of
the recreational enjoyment of the park (e.g., increased air, noise, and water
pollution) and the health of the park's ecosystems and native species.This rapid population growth will also lead
to more park visitors and recreational demands on the park.

In light of
these changes, we need to carefully consider and plan for the long-term
survival of the park's ecosystems and native species.To protect the park's biodiversity, it will
be increasingly important to coordinate the management of the park's
biodiversity with the various other management priorities within the park, and
to plan how management should respond to changes in the landscape surrounding
the park. FOM believes that this is a crucial time to address these diverse
issues. FOM believes that an important starting point in this process would be
for DCNR and State Parks to adopt a mission statement for OMSP that includes
biodiversity conservation and recreation as equally important priorities for
park management.In a separate, but
related, proposal FOM strongly urges the development of a Biodiversity
Conservation Plan (BCP) for the park that specifically addresses how to manage
park resources to ensure the survival of the park's natural ecosystems and
native species.In this document, we
explain our vision of how such a mission statement might read, how a BCP would
be structured and how it would function, how a BCP might be developed, and FOM’s position on specific management activities in OakMountainState Park.

2.a.A Mission
Statement Prioritizing Biodiversity Conservation:

To clarify the
role biodiversity conservation should play in park stewardship,
a mission statement is needed to define the management goals for the park.FOM believes that it is critical to the
preservation of biodiversity in the park for this mission statement to place
equally important priority on biodiversity and recreation in the park. This
will provide guidance for balancing between different and occasionally
competing demands on the park’s natural and financial resources.FOM believes that a strong commitment to biodiversity
conservation will not interfere significantly with current recreational uses of
the park (camping, trail biking, hiking, fishing, horseback riding, etc.).However, such a mission statement would help
ensure that the needs of biodiversity are represented and protected when future
recreational developments are considered.Fortunately, by virtue of OMSP’s large size, biodiversity conservation
and most forms of current and foreseeable recreational activities in the park
should be very compatible.However, any
form of off-road recreational vehicle activity (e.g., ATVs, jet skis) would not
be compatible with biodiversity conservation and many other forms of recreation
in the park.

Friends
of OakMountain presents the following proposed mission statement
for consideration:

"OakMountainState Park is one of Alabama's greatest natural resources.Its stewardship is to be guided by the
equally important goals of a) conserving the park's native biodiversity,
including the park's native plants and animals; their habitats and ecosystems;
and the features and landscapes that are a natural part of the park, and b)
providing park visitors with high-quality, carefully-planned outdoor
recreational opportunities within the context of a diverse forest
ecosystem."

2.b.Characteristics of a Successful Biodiversity
Conservation Plan

The goal of the
Biodiversity Conservation Plan (BCP) as envisioned by FOM should be to enable
park managers to protect and maintain for the foreseeable future sustainable
populations of the native species that permanently or periodically reside in
the park, and the ecosystems on which these species rely.There are five major features that would
characterize a successful BCP. Firstly,
the BCP should describe the major ecosystems that exist in the park, species of
particular importance in these ecosystems, and the major threats to these
species and ecosystems.While a thorough
map of the park and its ecosystems needs to be produced soon, it would not be
practical to wait for such a comprehensive survey.Instead, the major ecosystems and habitats
should be listed and described, and used as a basis for constructing the BCP.

Secondly, the BCP should commit the park to a set
of flexible conservation principles to help guide management of species and
ecosystems in the park, other park management decisions, and any proposed
revisions to the BCP.In essence, these
conservation principles would be used to develop flexible guidelines for
activities in the park so that long-term biodiversity preservation is not
compromised.In the section below we
outline several conservation principles that FOM believes should be included in
the BCP.

Thirdly, the BCP should be developed according
to an adaptive management model, that of making
informed management decisions, monitoring their effectiveness, and revising
future management approaches based on lessons learned.Ideally, we would wait for science to provide
the answers before proceeding with certain management methods. However, due to
limited resources and the careful but slow pace of scientific investigation,
waiting is not always possible.Instead,
managers should monitor the results of biodiversity management in the
park.Using this new information,
management practices can be refined to better promote biodiversity
conservation.

Fourthly, a successful BCP must be flexible (see
Figure 1).New scientific knowledge is
continuously being generated about the park’s ecosystems and their inhabitants,
and the landscape surrounding the park.A successful BCP would incorporate such new knowledge to better guide
biodiversity management in the park.In
addition, information from monitoring biodiversity management in the park will
periodically need to be incorporated into the BCP to better refine park management
guidelines. The BCP also needs to be available for periodic internal and public
review, comment, and revision to incorporate new knowledge and increased
understanding of the park's ecosystems.Public review also provides citizens the opportunity to discuss with
park officials how well the intentions of the BCP are being met through park
management, and provide park officials with feedback on how adherence to the
BCP is affecting recreational enjoyment of the park.Public review will help facilitate trust,
understanding, and communication between the park and Alabama's citizens, and
will give park managers opportunities to explain and engender support for the
intentions of park management practices that may not be well-understood by the
public (e.g., the use of prescribed fire).FOM also strongly advocates that public review be initiated with any
major change in park policy that might significantly affect park biodiversity,
or any proposed major development in the park that might significantly affect
park biodiversity.

Fifthly, the plan should be fiscally practical,
recognizing the park’s ever-present budgetary limitations,
and fiscally creative, incorporating cost-savings (for example, working with
volunteer groups, other state agencies, and other sections within DCNR) with
management that enhances biodiversity.

2.c.Commitment to Principles of Conservation:

A successful BCP
should outline a set of conservation principles to which park management should
be committed.These general principles
should be used to help managers develop specific guidelines for achieving
biodiversity conservation.The
principles described below are those that FOM believes should be included in
the development of a BCP.The principles
are far-reaching to provide the greater context for understanding the complexity
of biodiversity conservation.While
commitment to such principles is important for the success of biodiversity
conservation, we acknowledge that DCNR and State Parks does not have sufficient
resources to meet all the needs outlined here.However, by committing to such principles, DCNR and State Parks would
chart a course for both current and future efforts to protect biodiversity in
the park.

2.c.i.Biodiversity Conservation as a High Priority:

The conservation of
biodiversity in the park should be of high priority. It should be considered
just as important as other management priorities in the park.Why should biodiversity conservation be
prioritized so highly?The native
species inhabiting the park must live there far into the foreseeable future. If
populations of those species disappear, then those species may be lost from the
park forever. While we humans have the ability to be flexible in the location
and intensity of our activities, plants and animals are much less flexible in
the way they can respond to our activities in the park. Thus, the planning of
management and development activities in the park needs to take into account
how such activities may impact the park's populations of native species and
their ecosystems.It is important to
realize that FOM is not advocating the curtailing of current recreational use
in the park, nor are we advocating that recreation in the park should not be
expanded.Instead, we are encouraging
that the growth of recreation in the park be developed together with policies
to sustain biodiversity.

2.c.ii.
Favoring Native Species of Conservation Concern:

Any human
activity in the park is likely to negatively affect populations of some native
species or the ecosystems on which they depend.However, it would be impossible to manage the park such that no species
or ecosystems were negatively affected by human activities.Instead,FOM believes that management and
development activities in the park should be guided by the BCP to favor native species of conservation concern
over those native species that are of less concern to conservation and whose
regional populations are stable or are increasing in size.These “species of conservation concern” are
species whose populations are declining at the local, state, or national
levels.Illustrating this point with a
simplistic example, resource management that led to a decline in Indigo Bunting
habitat in the park would be of little concern, but loss of Wood Thrush habitat
in the park would be of much concern.FOM
advocates that DCNR consider species to be of conservation concern if those
species are included in the following categories:

a.As delineated by the Endangered Species
Act and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, any species that are federally
endangered, federally threatened, proposed federally endangered, proposed
federally threatened, or are candidate species.

b.As delineated by The Nature Conservancy
of Alabama’s Alabama Natural Heritage Program, any species classified as
Globally Critically Imperiled (G1 species), Globally Imperiled (G2), or
Globally Rare (G3), Critically Imperiled in Alabama (S1), Imperiled in Alabama
(S2), Rare or Uncommon in Alabama (S3), of Historical Occurrence by not having
been seen in 20 years (SH), Possibly Imperiled in Alabama (SU), and Extirpated
in Alabama (SX).See the Alabama Natural
Heritage Program’s Alabama Inventory List: Rare, Threatened, and
Endangered Plants, Animals, and Natural Communities of Alabama at http://www.alnhp.org/track_2003.pdf.

It is important to note
that FOM is not requesting that DCNR take active measures to re-introduce
native species that have been extirpated from the park.However, FOM advocates that DCNR support the
re-introduction of such species as resources and/or opportunities arise for
their re-introduction.

2.c.iii.Need for Active Management:

Active
management of the park's natural areas may be necessary to promote biodiversity
conservation in the park.Many of the
normal processes that once kept biodiversity levels high in the park are now
absent or diminished. Intervention to mimic these processes will be necessary
in many cases to preserve native biodiversity.Adaptive management principles should be applied.For example, large carnivores in the park are
absent.Thus, the BCP would likely call
for the controlling of herbivore populations, especially deer, by periodic
culling of such herds (a position FOM supports).

2.c.iv.Management Across
Varying Time Scales:

Because the
populations of native species living in the park need to survive indefinitely,
biodiversity conservation planning in the park needs to incorporate both
near-term and long-term management goals for multiple time periods (for
example, 5, 50, and 100-year scales).Many
important management goals may take many decades to achieve but may require
incremental actions in the near term.For example, a long-term goal may be to restore herbaceous plant species
diversity in the understory of the mountain longleaf pine forests.To achieve this, near-term goals would
include periodic prescribe burns. Mid-term goals may include distributing seeds
of herbaceous plants in areas where prescribed burns have created favorable
conditions for establishment.Long-term
goals may be to reconnect currently isolated patches of longleaf pine forest
within the park via restoration of longleaf forest in areas between these
patches.

2.c.v.Site-specific Management:

Management
strategies promoting native biodiversity need to be tailored to the particular
ecosystem, community, or habitat being affected by that management.On the broad scale, there are three major
types of natural ecosystems to consider in the park: upland forest (mountain
longleaf forest), lowland deciduous forest, and the park’s streams.Management plans promoting native
biodiversity need to be developed for each of these ecosystems.Within each one, different management
strategies may be needed.For example,
fire is an appropriate management tool promoting biodiversity in upland forests
that historically have been exposed to natural fires, but it is not an
appropriate management tool for promoting biodiversity in lowland deciduous
forest.Thus, the BCP would likely call
for continued use of prescribed fire as a management tool in upland forests
throughout the park (a position FOM advocates).

2.c.vi.Reduce Fragmentation of Natural Ecosystems:

Terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems function best when connectivity between them is
maximized.Similarly, populations of
most native species are more secure when connectivity in their landscape is
maintained.Connectivity allows species
and ecosystem processes to move naturally throughout the park.Thus, management and development activities
in the park should minimize fragmentation of the park's natural
ecosystems.For example, the land within
the park was once an intact forest ecosystem with only a very few natural
clearings.Through time, the park's
forests became fragmented as developments were added.Thus, the Biodiversity Conservation Plan
might emphasize that forest fragmentation in the park should not be increased
any more than is absolutely necessary (a position FOM advocates).When locations for new development in the
park are sought, such development could be placed in areas already developed
(e.g., under-used facilities) rather than clearing additional forest. In
addition, when resources and opportunities arise, connections between separated
sections of forest should be established via forest restoration.

2.c.vii.Minimizing External Threats:

Biodiversity
conservation planning needs to recognize threats that are now and will be,
coming from the changing landscape beyond the park's borders.As land outside the park is developed, it will be increasingly difficult
for many of the park's native species to survive, especially those with large
ranges extending beyond the park and those in the park that need periodic
recruitment from populations outside the park.Other external threats that will result from continued development
outside the park include increased chance of wildfire, and more air, water, and
noise pollution.Increased development
near the border will also lead to increased invasions into the park of exotic
plant and animal species.For many of
these threats, there is little that can be done to mitigate them.But for other threats, much can be done to
minimize them.For example, the
Biodiversity Conservation Plan might call for periodic surveys along the park
border by park personnel or volunteers to locate and remove invasive exotic
species.

2.c.viii.Maximizing External Benefits:

A Biodiversity
Conservation Plan should also look to the landscape and entities beyond the
park’s border as potential resources to help preserve park biodiversity.For example, if OMSP can be connected to (or
maintain connection to) protected natural areas surrounding the park, there
will be more habitat available for the park's migratory species or species that
travel large distances for obtaining food.Such landscape connectivity could be achieved through cooperative
agreements with public agencies and private entities owning land in the area.
Another external benefit are the many citizens of the
area who would help with efforts to implement the BCP (e.g., invasive species
removal, biodiversity surveys). Such creative endeavors should be explored in
the development and implementation of the BCP.

The following
are suggested guidelines for the development of a BCP.Clearly, DCNR and State Parks has ultimate
authority in designing the process of BCP development.However, FOM believes that following the
principles discussed below will help ensure that a thorough and successful plan
for the park is constructed.

3.a.Inception:

The process of
developing a Biodiversity Conservation Plan (BCP) should begin with the
commitment of DCNR and State Parks to adopting a mission statement for the park
and a commitment to developing a BCP.

3.b.Authorship:

FOM advocates
that DCNR forms a committee of authors to develop the BCP for the park.These authors should represent a diversity of
institutions and expertise related to biodiversity conservation.Especially important would be including
experts on park management and recreation, forest ecology, invasive species
control, stream ecology, prescribed fire, and the ecology of the wildland-urban interface.Each author should bring to the committee considerable knowledge about
biodiversity conservation and/or park management.FOM proposes that representatives from five
categories be included to create a well-balanced committee representing diverse
viewpoints: (1) the State of Alabama, (2) academic institutions, (3)
non-profit conservation organizations, (4) citizen environmental groups, and
(5) experts from federal agencies. We suggest that membership be comprised of
twenty percent from each of these five categories with 2-5 members from each
group.State representation could
include experts in biodiversity conservation from DCNR(e.g., State Parks, StateLands, Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries) and
experts from state agencies from outside of DCNR.Authors from public and private academic
institutions would help to ensure that up-to-date scientific information is
considered.Members from non-profit
conservation organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Longleaf Alliance)
and citizens from environmental organizations (e.g., Alabama Environmental
Council, Birmingham Audubon Society) with strong backgrounds in biodiversity
conservation could add valuable insight to the plan.Finally, several federal agencies (e.g.,
United States Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States
Geological Survey) have experts in biodiversity conservation whose knowledge
would be valuable in the formation of a Biodiversity Conservation Plan.It would be up to the committee of authors to
determine how best to organize their efforts.

3.c.Timeframe:

FOM proposes
that the committee of authors have one year to develop a final document.Ideally, this process, including public
review and comment, would be completed by December 31, 2005.

3.d.Review, Comment, Revision, and Final
Approval:

Public
involvement in the process of developing a BCP will be crucial for engendering
public support for the plan.Including
diverse feedback during plan development is critical for its success. It will
engender among the stakeholders trust, commitment, and community pride that
will help ensure broad support for the BCP.Feedback will be necessary from the recreational representatives, local
government officials, local business owners, and local property owners. It may
be wise for the authors to solicit public opinion from these entities about the
development of the plan prior to writing of the draft.Once the BCP is drafted, it should be made
readily available for review and comment by the public and all stakeholders.
Sufficient time should be given to allow the public to review and comment on
the plan (the draft should be made available as hard copy by request and posted
online as a PDF file).At that stage in
the process it would be wise to solicit review from experts on relevant issues
who did not participate in authoring the draft.After gathering feedback from the public and solicited reviewers, the
authors would then revise the BCP as needed, and then submit the draft to DCNR
and State Parks for review and comment.After receiving and incorporating comments from DCNR and State Parks
administrations, a 'final' draft would be completed and given to DCNR and State
Parks for final approval. The word "final" is in quotes here to
emphasize that the BCP will still be an evolving document with continual future
revisions as explained above.

4.FOM’s Position on Specific Management Activities
in OakMountainState Park

FOM
believes that development of a Biodiversity Conservation Plan is necessary for
the long-term survival of the native species and ecosystems of OakMountainState Park.Developing such a plan to benefit species of conservation concern
while continuing to offer high-quality recreational experiences in the park
will take time and careful consideration. Until such a plan is
established, Friends of Oak Mountain will advocate the management guidelines
below.These guidelines address some of
the current and near-future management issues that the park faces or
potentially faces.This is also an
opportunity for FOM to explain our position on these issues.

4.a.Deer Management and Deer Habitat Management:

FOM agrees with
DCNR that the deer herd should be reduced and maintained at a size such that
plant and animal populations are not threatened by over-grazing.As evidence of an overpopulation of deer, we
have observed that many wildflower species are disappearing in the park due to
overgrazing, and there is a browse-line throughout much of the park.An additional result of overgrazing is that
nesting habitats for many breeding birds are disappearing (e.g., Wood Thrush,
Hooded Warbler).FOM believes that
scientific monitoring should be used to collect data on herd size and the
effects of grazing by deer.These data
need to be collected on a regular, seasonal basis to determine the success of
attempts to restore plant diversity by culling the deer herd (e.g., regular,
standardized spot-lighting surveys).Trained volunteers could be recruited to assist with surveys.FOM does not support providing feeding
stations for deer, or creating more habitat for deer
by clearing forest or modifying existing clearings.Such measures may temporarily concentrate
deer activity in these locations, but the availability of more food and/or
habitat will only stimulate growth of the herd and perpetuate the problem.

4.b.Prescribed Burns:

Prescribed burns
should be used to promote biodiversity and reduce fuel levels in the upland
forests of the park, especially the mountain longleaf pine forests. Fire plays
a natural, vital role in the perpetuation of these forests. These burns should
be designed to encourage the existence of sustainable populations of those species
characteristic of these upland forests.

4.c.Mechanical Removal and Felling of Vegetation

Would mechanical
removal or felling of vegetation be acceptable in OakMountainState Park according to a Biodiversity Conservation
Plan?Friends of OakMountain believes an answer to this question should be
founded on principles of the science of forest ecology and is more complex than
it may seem.Mechanical removal or
felling of vegetation in some situations could benefit biodiversity
conservation in the park, but in other situations, clearing of forest or
felling of trees may threaten biodiversity conservation in the park.Before these considerations are discussed, we
need first to discuss the role of natural disturbances in the forest ecosystems
of the park.

The natural ecosystem
of OakMountainState
Park is a
mosaic of different forest types.In any
forest, disturbances that lead to the death of trees are natural
occurrences.Windstorms, wildfires, and
pest outbreaks are natural processes that historically caused disturbances in
the forests of OMSP.Forests respond to
such natural disturbances through the process of forest succession whereby
early-successional or pioneer trees become established in the openings or gaps
in the forest created by downed trees.Later, mature forest tree species replace the early-successional species
in this cyclic process.When the region
around the park was predominantly forested, early-successional habitats
provided important resources for species of plants and animals that need such
habitats.Now that much of the region
has been logged or cleared, these early-successional habitats and the species
that prefer them are very abundant in the region, whereas mature forests are
disappearing.Thus, in the context of
biodiversity conservation in the region, providing early-successional habitats
is unwarranted.Most, perhaps all,
species of conservation concern that reside in the park are species requiring
mature forests.

With
this understanding, we now present several scenarios in which mechanical
removal or felling of vegetation could be considered for the park and discuss
the compatibility of these management techniques with a biodiversity
conservation plan that would be supported by FOM.The guiding principle in each of these
scenarios is that mechanical removal or felling of vegetation should only be
used to promote biodiversity conservation (that is, promoting sustainable
populations of species of conservation concern).Within the context of this discussion, the
term ‘logging’ shall be defined as any timber cut for profit or salvage.

4.c.i.Clearcut Logging:

Clearcutting of
forest (for commercial logging or any other purpose) has no role in
biodiversity conservation in the park.Such logging practices, or their kin (e.g., shelterwood system or seed-tree system) would reduce the
habitat needed by most species of conservation concern in the park and would
negatively affect streams and large areas of forest beyond the areas
logged.As we understand it, the
motivation for logging could come from two persuasions or a combination of
both:(1) to generate revenue for OMSP
or all State Parks or (2) to promote biodiversity conservation in the
park.FOM believes either of these
motivations would be misguided and would certainly jeopardize biodiversity
conservation in the park.While FOM
sympathizes that State Parks and DCNR as a whole are under-funded, harvesting
trees in the park for revenue would erode the integrity of biodiversity in the
park and the aesthetic appeal of the park.As for promoting biodiversity, large-scale logging will not create the
habitat that is needed most by species of conservation concern.While the absence, or near absence, of a
canopy in a logged area may seem to mimic large-scale natural disturbances such
as windstorms, the ecological differences between natural disturbances and
large-scale clearance of forest are vast and severe.Logging of forest can lead to the following
negative ecological consequences for biodiversity conservation:

In light of these
effects, FOM cannot support the large-scale clearance of forest or similar
forest management techniques in OakMountainState Park.

4.c.ii.Removal of Exotic Invasive Plants:

Exotics are
those species not native to the region.Invasives are those species that have rapid population growth, can
significantly negatively affect the populations of native species, and
sometimes alter natural ecosystem processes.Invasive exotic plant species are of particular concern to biodiversity
conservation; they follow habitat loss as the second greatest threat to
biodiversity.Alabama's generous amounts of rain and long
growing season make our state highly vulnerable to invasive exotic plants.Several species such as kudzu, mimosa,
Chinese privet, and English ivy, are of particular concern as they can invade
forests.FOM would support mechanical or
chemical removal of invasive exotic species.Like cancer, it is best to remove invasive exotics as soon as they are
detected.Indeed, FOM strongly suggests
that a policy calling for the removal of exotic invasive plants in the park be
established as soon as possible so that further ground is not lost to them.One species needing immediate focused removal
efforts in the park is Chinese privet (Ligustrumsinense).

4.c.iii.Fuel Reduction:

Wildfires are an
inescapable threat to the park.They can
be started by lightning, park users (accidentally or intentionally), or when
prescribed burns escape containment.Wildfires
also can spread from areas adjacent to the park (e.g., brush or leaf fires on
adjacent lands).At this point in the
park's history, wildfires are potentially catastrophic to biodiversity in the
park.This is true even for those
ecosystems in the park that historically have had wildfire as a frequent
disturbance.The reason for this is that
after many decades of fire suppression, fuel levels ('fuel' meaning dead
organic debris that can combust during fire) have accumulated to a point that a
wildfire in hot dry weather would burn so intensely that it could kill too much
existing vegetation.

One
goal of prescribed burning in the park is the reduction of fuels.Fuel reduction via prescribed burns or other
methods decreases the severity and threat of wildfires to humans and
biodiversity and makes efforts to control wildfires easier.While prescribed burns are usually the
preferred method of reducing fuels (they are cost-effective and in some
ecosystems promote biodiversity), fuels in the forest also can be reduced via
mechanical removal or a combination of mechanical manipulation and
burning.An example would be raking fuel
into piles and burning these piles under appropriate conditions. Fuel reduction
is mostly a concern in the drier forests of the park where wildfires are more
likely to be catastrophic and difficult to control.Fuel reduction is less of a concern in
deciduous forests that are less likely to burn as wildfire spreads and, when
they do burn, are likely to be easier to control.In addition, fuel quickly decays and becomes
incombustible in these moist deciduous forests.

In
some areas of the park prescribed burns may not be a preferred method of fuel
reduction due to proximity to infrastructure or houses immediately adjacent to
the park.In these areas FOM may support
using mechanical means of fuel reduction.In areas near the park's border, this could serve to promote
biodiversity conservation for two reasons.First, it would reduce the chance of wildfire spreading into the park
from outside the park, and thus threatening the park's forests.And second, it would reduce the chance that a
wildfire escaping from a prescribed burn would spread onto private land and
threaten property.This latter
"worse case scenario" would severely reduce public support for
prescribed burns in the park.For these
reasons, mechanical fuel reduction can be part of a strong BCP.To garner FOM's
support, it would be essential that methods of mechanical fuel reduction used
would minimize negative impacts on biodiversity.For example, the techniques used should
minimize erosion and fragmentation when accessing the sites and creating fire
lanes.One method of
fuel reduction that reduces the need for heavy machinery is one in which fuel
is raked or carried into small piles and then burned under supervision.These methods have the added benefit of
returning nutrients to the soil.Volunteers might be willing to help with such activities.

Any plans to reduce fuels should
include a long-term plan for managed sites.This planning should describe how the site will be managed during and
after the fuel removal.For example, the
plan should describe how erosion will be controlled in the cases in which heavy
machinery is used.The plan should also
describe what types of vegetation will be allowed to re-grow in the treated
areas, and how that vegetation and new accumulations of fuels will be treated
in the future.Whenever possible,
planning for these sites should be used to promote biodiversity conservation in
the park in addition to fuel reduction.For example, areas where brush has been cleared could be seeded with
native wildflower species.

4.c.iv.Forest
Restoration Efforts:

Friends
of OakMountain recognizes that it may be necessary to fell
undesirable trees in areas undergoing active management to restore natural
forest types in the park.This would
only be a preferred strategy in upland forests invaded by fire-intolerant
hardwood species that do not have a natural role in those forests.While prescribed burns in these areas will
eliminate the seedlings and saplings of the undesired species, the
low-intensity fires of prescribed burns will not kill larger undesired
trees.Removal or felling of those
undesired trees will be important for opening up the canopy to allow
regeneration of longleaf pine trees, other tree species characteristic of
longleaf forests, and the shrubs and herbaceous plants that thrive in longleaf
forests.Such efforts would help
biodiversity conservation in the park and would be supported by FOM.

A variety of techniques could be
used to accomplish this, including felling or girdling of those trees, or
piling fuels around their bases prior to a prescribed burn.The approach that would be best would depend
on the idiosyncrasies of the site.Careful consideration of the needs of biodiversity and the local
conditions in each situation would be necessary.

4.c.v.Creating Wildlife Viewing Areas:

Wildlife
observation is one of the important recreational activities the park provides
its users.Many of the areas where
mid-sized and large wildlife is most readily viewed are the unnatural forest
clearings near developed areas in the park. Often these are located near roads.Friends of OakMountain does not support the creation of additional
forest clearings.The reasons are much
the same as those explained in the above section concerning the negative
aspects of large-scale forest clearance.It is often a common misperception by the public that such areas are
necessary to provide the resources needed to sustain species' populations in
the park.This is misguided for several
reasons.First, small clearings rarely
provide sufficient habitat for sustainably maintaining populations of wildlife
(for example, the home ranges of those species encompass areas larger than
these clearings).Second, the species
that benefit from such clearings are not the species of conservation
concern.Populations of deer, rabbit, and
turkey in the park are not in need of more resources.Sustainable populations of these species can
be maintained in the park without the need for increasing the amount of
clearings.

Thus
FOM cannot support the clearing of forest to create more wildlife viewing
areas.Sufficient opportunities for
wildlife viewing in clearings are afforded along the roadside, golf course,
lake margins, trails, and other areas.

4.c.vi.Safety Concerns:

It may be
necessary on occasion to remove trees to promote safety.In areas where people frequent, it would be
wise to remove trees that are dead, are dying, or are leaning precariously if
their fall could injure people or their property.FOM is not opposed to removal of these trees
as long as removal is minimized to only those trees that truly threaten life or
property.FOM cannot support the removal
of trees that are upright and healthy simply because they may fall during a
windstorm.

4.c.vii.Pest
or Disease Outbreak:

Various diseases
and pests are plaguing forests throughout the United States by causing tree mortality.The southern pine beetle (Dendroctonusfrontalis) in particular has killed many
stands of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
throughout the southeastern United States and within OMSP.Other threats may loom on the horizon
including Sudden Oak Death and the Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophoraglabripennis)
that attacks species of maple (Acer sp.).How to prevent infection or treat infected
areas in the park will depend on the dynamics of the species causing the
outbreak.FOM recognizes that mechanical
removal or felling of trees may be necessary as part of a response to future
outbreaks.However, with some outbreaks,
mechanical removal or felling may not be advisable.FOM would advocate that park managers to seek
the advice of experts in forestry science and forest ecology in order to make a
decision.

The
Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Outbreak:
It must be decided whether biodiversity conservation in OMSP is positively or
negatively affected by salvage logging of trees infected by the southern pine
beetle.During salvage logging, dead
trees are felled, and infected trees are cut and removed for lumber
production.The sale of the timber helps
offset the cost of hiring the logging company.Salvage logging has been effective in some forests in slowing the spread
of SPB outbreaks.Southern pine beetle
preferentially attacks loblolly and Virginia pine (P. virginiana).Both are
early-successional species that are normally replaced by late-successional
species typical of the old-growth forests that need to be nurtured in the park.Because these two pine species will be
naturally dying in the forest over the next several decades, their "early
demise" may only speed along the development of late-successional
older-growth forests.Indeed, the
current high densities and widespread distributions of loblolly and Virginia pine in the park seem to be artifacts of
the large-scale logging in the park during the first half of the twentieth
century.Historically, it is very likely
that loblolly and Virginia pine both were present in the park in
densities much lower than today.

In
the past, the park has used salvage logging in some of these areas.If OMSP were managed for timber production,
salvage logging would be a logical response.However, FOM believes the park should be managed for biodiversity
conservation and recreation, not timber production.Thus, whether salvage logging is appropriate
for the park depends on whether there is a net gain or loss for biodiversity
conservation in the park, not monetary gain.There are several clear negative consequences of salvage logging to
consider.First, there is the increased
soil compaction and erosion created by operating heavy machinery in these
areas.Second, there is damage by
machinery to existing trees not vulnerable to the beetle.Third, removal of the timber from the site
also removes nutrients that would otherwise be incorporated into soil
development.Fourth, forest regeneration
in these gaps may be slowed due to the damage to soil and existing vegetation
during the logging.All of these
problems would be avoided if the trees were allowed to die and fall
naturally.

Creative solutions to
this dilemma can be imagined and may be supported by FOM.For instance, if it is determined that
slowing the outbreak would benefit biodiversity conservation but that the
negative consequences of logging should be avoided, then infected trees could
be felled and left on-site (southern pine bark beetles only infect upright
trees; felled trees do not facilitate the spread of the outbreak).Another solution might be to conduct salvage
logging only in areas where loblolly pines have invaded uplands where longleaf
pine forests once dominated.These
logged areas would then become plots for active longleaf pine restoration
involving the planting of longleaf seedlings and followed-up with periodic
prescribed burns.

Any salvage logging
or felling of trees to reduce disease outbreaks should include the development
of a management plan for the sites in order to restore biodiversity.Such prescriptions should follow from the
guidelines set forth in the BCP.

Deciding
how to respond to the future outbreaks of beetle infestation is a complicated
issue.FOM would like to hear the
opinions of the authors of the BCP before deciding on whether FOM would support
salvage logging of infected loblolly and Virginia pine trees in the park.

4.c.viii.Salvage Logging after Windstorm:

For the reasons
described above, FOM does not support salvage logging in the forest where
strong winds have blown trees down (blowdowns).Blowdowns are a
natural disturbance to the forest and downed trees should be left in place and
allowed to decay so that their nutrients are returned to the soil.Trees in the forest that have been blown down
wholly or partially should only be removed if they hinder use of park
infrastructure (e.g., road or trail), or if they threaten people or
property.Trees blown down in developed
(non-forested) areas of the park could be salvaged with no great impact on biodiversity
conservation.

4.d.Survey of Park Boundary:

The boundary
lines for OakMountainState Park vary from one map to another and cause
confusion for citizens and the park employees.Friends of OakMountain strongly suggests that the park boundaries be resurveyed
and a new map be published.This would
greatly help the gathering of information needed to produce detailed management
guidelines and goals. For example, such a map could be used in a survey to
determine which areas of the park adjacent to development have high fuel loads
that need to be reduced.

4.e.Creation of a Forest Demonstration Area

FOM
supports the creation of a large demonstration plot that would serve as (1) a
display site for various forest management techniques, (2) a training area for
park employees and volunteers learning forest management techniques, and (3) an
education area for demonstrating to the public aspects of forest ecology and
management.Such an area could encompass
a range of natural and unnatural forest conditions to represent the variety of
forest conditions in the park.These may
include the following:upland longleaf
pine forest and bottomland deciduous forest; permanent and ephemeral streams,
and forest edge (preferably with exotic invasive species) and forest
interior.

The demonstration area should be large enough
to include a wide array of management techniques, and new areas could be added
as resources and opportunities become available.Sections of the demonstration forest could be
managed with prescribed burns, and it could include control sections that are
not burned.Fire lines could be created
by different methods, their effectiveness tested, and subsequent erosion
monitored.Mechanical fuel reduction
techniques could be developed, tested, and practiced.Plots with invasive exotic plants could be
monitored with plots where these invasives were removed via different
techniques.Users could also practice
tree identification.A demonstration
forest area could become a focal point for school field trips for K-12 and
college classes, thus benefiting biodiversity conservation through
education.FOM could help DCNR seek
funding for these projects.

2 Henry Hughes. Henry established Shades Valley Forestry
in 1995, a firm advocating for theprotection and preservation of urban
trees and forests. He has served on the boards of numerous non-profit
environmental organizations and currently serves as vice-president of the board
of the Alabama Rivers Alliance and as executive director of the Friends of
Shades Creek.He is an instructor of
forestry at JeffersonStateCommunity College in Birmingham. He is a Registered Forester with the
state of Alabama and a Certified Forester with the
Society of American Foresters.He is a
graduate of the University of the South (B.S.), the University of Kentucky (B.S.), Texas A&M University (M.S.), and the
Auburn University-based Leadership Program for Agriculture and Forestry, a
two-year program of national and international travel and study.

3 Gregory J. Harber.Greg is a Research Assistant in the Department of Biochemistry and
Molecular Genetics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.He serves on the boards of the Birmingham Audubon Society and the WildlifeCenter and is president of the Dauphin Island
Bird Sanctuaries, Inc.He is the
director of the Audubon Mountain Workshop, a 4-day ecology camp held each May
in Mentone, AL.He is also the Region 4 coordinator of the Alabama Breeding Bird Atlas
Project. He is a graduate of AuburnUniversity (B.S. – 1982, Secondary Science
Education; M.S. – 1986, Cell Biology)

Arrows indicate
the direction of information flow. The BCP serves to guide park managers
through decisions that must be made about the park as well as educate the
public. The BCP is an adaptable document that incorporates new knowledge as it
arises.Numbers in boxes correspond to
text above.Boxes 6 and 7 are not discussed in this document
but warrant attention by stakeholders.